Effective personal hearing requires a real opportunity to defend; ex parte adjudication after refused adjournment was unsustainable.

A hearing is effective only when the party is given a real opportunity to defend; a short notice hearing combined with a timely adjournment request and counsel's unavailability made the hearing illusory. Refusing adjournment in those circumstances resulted in an ex parte adjudication that amounted to empty compliance with audi alteram partem. The ex parte order was therefore unsustainable for breach of natural justice, and the matter had to be remanded for fresh decision after granting an effective personal hearing.

---

---

Issues: Whether the ex parte adjudication, made after refusing adjournment and without granting an effective personal hearing, violated principles of natural justice and required remand.

Analysis: The request for adjournment was made in advance and reiterated promptly after receipt of the short notice for hearing. The hearing notice afforded only a few days, while counsel was stated to be unavailable and stationed away from the place of hearing. On these facts, the opportunity of hearing was not effective and amounted to an empty compliance with audi alteram partem. An effective hearing is a fundamental requirement, and where it is denied in the circumstances of the case, the ex parte order cannot be sustained.

Conclusion: The ex parte order was unsustainable for breach of natural justice, and the matter was required to be remanded for fresh decision after granting an effective opportunity of hearing.

Ratio Decidendi: A hearing is meaningful only if it is effective; where a bona fide request for adjournment is rejected and the party is compelled to appear on short notice without a real chance to defend, the adjudication is vitiated by denial of natural justice and must be set aside and remanded.

---